by Carl V Phillips
The CASAA statement on this docket is now available at the main CASAA blog. It also appears at the regulations.gov docket page. It is pretty self-explanatory, but for background and a link to the text of the FDA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that it responds to can be found at our Call To Action for it. (Note that this is being posted about five hours before the deadline for that CTA, so chances are that when you read this it is too late for you to respond to that CTA if you did not do so. [correction: you have until midnight, not EOB today, so there is still time if you are reading this early enough today])
The very short version is: A federal mandate for child safety labeling and packaging is a good idea, so long as the very modest benefits it offers are not achieved at the expense of creating substantial burdens for consumers. We also observe that other commentators are likely to use this ANPRM as an excuse to push their unrelated agenda of intentionally lowering product quality, and that any benefits from this and other beneficial regulation are dwarfed by the enormous social harms that would be created by “deeming” these products in the first place (as that proposal is currently conceived).
Tobacco harm reduction, anti-THR lies, and related topics 
If you haven’t already seen it, the UK Government web page, linked to below, may be of interest. It includes the strange sentence: “… But, we also know that using local stop smoking services is by far the most effective way to quit.” Either this is completely wrong, or perhaps they are conflating quitting nicotine and quitting tobacco smoking. Either way it it is confusing, perhaps misleading.
http://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-an-emerging-public-health-consensus
Yes, there is much good — and much, um, well, I will accept “confusing” — about the recent UK government statements.
Pingback: FDA pseudo-regulation of e-cigarettes: what possible benefit? | Anti-THR Lies and related topics